Special Feature

User Panel

My Panel

My Panel

Bookmark Science Articles

Recent News
Bookmark / Share This Science Site

Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI).

Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Research Abstract Details 

Research Abstract Table of Contents

Jump to the:

  • Abstract Text of This Paper
  • Journal Published
  • MeSH Keywords of This Abstract
  • Chemicals and Substances Used in this Paper
  • Grants and Granting Agency of this Research
  • Database Accession Numbers Used in this Paper
  • Related Papers
  • Related Research Tags
  • Rate this Research Paper
  • Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Abstract Text:

    michael e rybakMichael E Rybak,daniel l parkerDaniel L Parker,christine m pfeifferChristine M Pfeiffer,

    A comparison of the analytical performance of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI) for the quantitative determination of six urinary phytoestrogens (daidzein, O-desmethylangolensin, equol, enterodiol, enterolactone and genistein) by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) is presented here. Both APCI and ESI were suitable for the analysis of these compounds; however, ESI did improve measurement imprecision and sensitivity in certain cases. Method imprecision (between-run coefficients of variation [CVs] from duplicate analysis of three quality control [QC] urine pools across 20 runs) was 5.6-12% for ESI, as opposed to 5.3-30% for APCI. At low concentrations (3-60ng/mL, analyte dependent) imprecision was lower with ESI, whereas both techniques were generally commensurate at high concentrations (200-1000ng/mL, analyte dependent). Method accuracy (spiked analyte recovery from the QC pools) was comparable between techniques: 86-114% for ESI; 95-105% for APCI. Limits of detection (LODs) were equivalent or better with ESI compared to APCI, with the most significant LOD improvement observed for equol (ESI: 0.3ng/mL; APCI: 2.7ng/mL). This translated into a substantial increase in equol detection frequency (% of sample results above LOD) within a random patient sample subset (98% for ESI, compared to 81% for APCI, n=378). Correlation (Pearson) and agreement (Deming regression, Bland-Altman bias) between ESI and APCI results in the patient subset was better in cases where imprecision and sensitivity was similar for both techniques (daidzein, enterolactone, genistein: r=0.993-0.998; slope=0.98-1.03; bias=-4.2 to -0.8%); correlation and/or agreement was poorer for analytes, where APCI imprecision and sensitivity were inferior (equol, O-desmethylangolensin, enterodiol). Baring significant factors arising from differences in ionization source design, these observations suggest that ESI is more appropriate for urinary biomonitoring of these compounds by LC-MS/MS.

    Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Publishing Authors By Initials

    me rybakME Rybak,dl parkerDL Parker,cm pfeifferCM Pfeiffer,

    For similar abstracts research abstracts see: abstracts research

    PUBMED ID PMID:

    MEDLINE DATE:

    Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Journal Published:

    PUBLICATION TYPE: Journal Article

    Journal: Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technolog

    VOLUME: 861

    Page Numbers: 145-50

    Journal Abbreviation: J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Techn

    ISSN: 1570-0232

    DAY: 21

    MONTH: 11

    YEAR: 2007

    Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Information

    Number of References:

    LANGUAGE: eng

    NlmUniqueID: 101139554

    Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Keywords Mesh Terms:

    KEYWORDS:

    MESH TERMS:

    Chemical & Substance for Abstract: Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI). Information

    Substance Name:

    Registry Number:

    Grant and Affiliation Information for Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electrospray ionization (ESI).

    AFFILIATION: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.

    Country: Netherlands

    Netherlands Research PublicationNetherlands Research Publication

    AGENCY:

    GRANT:

    ACRONYM:

    MEDLINETA: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol

    REFSOURCE:

    DATABASENAME:

    ACCESSION NUMBER:

    Number Hits: 0

    Determination of urinary phytoestrogens by HPLC-MS/MS: A comparison of atmospheric pressure chemical ionization APCI and electrospray ionization ESI Related Publications

     

    Molecular Station USER Menu

    Welcome to Molecular Station!

    You have to register before you can post on our forums or use our advanced features. Register Now! Its Free and Fast!

    Already registered? Login now below.

    User Name:

    Password:

    Already registered and Forgot your password? Click below to recover it.

    Recover Lost Password

    Join now - it's fast and free!

    Molecular Station is THE largest network of researchers, scientists and science lovers anywhere!

    Research Terms of Usage and Disclaimer
    Home
    Features

    Protocols

    DNA Forum

    Science Forum

    DNA Forum
    Biology Forum

    Science News


    [CaRP] XML error: Invalid document end at line 2

    For more click here:Science News